- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:35:31 -0700
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
- CC: "CSS WWW Style (www-style@w3.org)" <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
On 05/23/2014 10:11 AM, Richard Ishida wrote: > Thanks. There is a slightly stronger message in the second sentence > of the auto section, but I'd still prefer to see the text of the > example changed to make it clearer that the universal compromise is > not really a *useful* compromise, and that UAs should (rather than > 'could') apply more accurate typographic support where the > language/script is known. I kinda prefer to not use RFC2119 terminology in non-normative sections like examples. There is a normative SHOULD in the definition, though. I added some context, so it now reads: # Since justification rules vary by writing system and language, # UAs should, where possible, use a justification algorithm # appropriate to the text. Let me know if that's good. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 17:36:04 UTC